I know basically nothing about Franklin-and-Adams-in-France other than what I just saw in the miniseries, and it was painfully obvious to me that Franklin was vastly better at being a diplomat than Adams. I don’t think the miniseries is trying to convince us that Adams’s position was the correct one.
That’s what I got out of it as well. You could see Adams’ frustration with Franklin’s methods but then you found out that he was getting results by playing the game the way the French liked and not just being a passionate straightman.
Okay, cool, then I think HBO is doing a better job showing it then the book actually did. I could be wrong of course.
Anyone who doesn’t know that dozed through every American history class he had growing up.
I loved the contrast between the French and the Dutch. And I agree that JA was a fish out of water in France, and BF was the guy to get the job done. I notice that JA’s kids suffer from the same non-aging affliction that Vorenus’ kids had in Rome.
I was hoping we’d see something of General Lafayette. I missed an episode. Has there been anything shown with him or is he not important to Adams’ story?
John Mace, yeah, JQ isn’t aging. How much time has elapsed so far, in the series? Wasn’t Abigail pregnant in episode two? I don’t recall seeing a baby.
I’m wondering if this story needs more than seven episodes.
Speaking of John Quincy, I suspect historians may be missing some of the marital politics of this situation. Did Abigail send John Q because she wanted to broaden his horizons? Or did she send him to keep his father from falling prey to the (ahem) temptations of Paris?
John didn’t seem too tempted by the women he encountered. I thought they were hideous – not nearly as attractive as the ones we see in movies about Louis XI.
But then Abigail didn’t have any way of knowing that. She must have known the court was licentious, but she also knew how much John cared about her.
But yeah, maybe JQ was insurance.
I wanted John to spend some time outside the court, maybe meeting some common people. Was that just not done?
Probably about 8 or 9 years. The Boston Massacre was in 1770, and I assume the trial would have been the same year. France and the US formed an alliance in 1779. I think it’s just one of those things we have to grin at and accept-- getting 5 different child actors to play the same part probably isn’t practical.
Okay, I’m probably mis-remembering. But the description for an upcoming episode has Adams disowning Charles, and he was a source of great unhappiness to his family.
There’s no evidence that John ever so much as thought about cheating on Abigail, but he wrote very few letters to her during that first trip to Europe, which made her pretty unhappy, as they showed. Adams did come to admire French women, and he did learn to speak French. (Wasn’t that white makeup hideous?)
Yes. I was wondering how historically accurate that was. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was pretty accurate.
I think it would be more the exception than the rule that we would find evidence to document an extramarital affair.
But the question isn’t whether Adams had affairs. The question is whether Abigail worried about the possibility. I’m sure that worry was part of the reason for her unhappiness at the lack of correspondence.
What was his reason for not writing home more often? He didn’t want the letters to be intercepted by the British? I don’t know how to take that. He wasn’t going to give anything away that would hurt the war effort and Abigail would understand that he couldn’t talk about his mission. So what’s left? Sweet nothings, weather’s fine, the foie gras gave me gas, hemlines are up, and general news – it would have been better than no letters at all.
That white makeup – wasn’t it lead-based? I read that somewhere. It looked especially bad against yellow teeth.
I’m curious about the hair on the men. It’s easy to tell when they’re wearing contemporary wigs – the rolled-up curls give it away – but I can’t hardly tell if their hair is their own otherwise. Movie wigs or wigs for historical accuracy? And why was that guy spritzing powder on John’s wig? Was it bug-killer?
I chuckled at Franklin’s comment about how the French were fond of bathing – for other people.
I got out the McCullough book and skimmed the chapter on his first visit to France. (Really fascinating stuff about Franklin and the French.)
At one point Adams receives a packet of letters from Abigail “filled with abject loneliness and accusing him of neglecting her.” Adams claimed to have written nearly fifty letters to her between April and September, which was almost certainly an exaggeration (the author says), but she received only two. She complained that his correspondence was too cold, too brief, and too impersonal. He answers that “Millions would not tempt me to write to you as I used to” because he knows the letters will be intercepted and copied to Congress and the newspapers.
Even in this single chapter there are several scenes and conversations which are depicted in the show exactly as they’re written. The dinner table conversation about Adam and Eve apparently really happened, for example.
From Wiki:
Thank you for checking on this. Is the “as I used to” the important part here? He doesn’t want to take the chance that personal stuff will be made public? That’s how I take it.
It’d be interesting to know if any of Abigail’s letters to him were intercepted. Or to know what correspondence was intercepted.
Some things never change, do they, for public figures?
Some of the white foundation was lead-based in the 18th century, but there were several other common recipes. Most had some sort of fat, with a white pigment added in. You could also achieve a white complexion by putting on a thin layer of face cream/lotion/pomade/fat, and then powdering heavily over that.
And, yes, the white makeup is a 100-percent accurate look. It wasn’t about looking natural; it was about achieving an idealized look that has since fallen out of fashion.
I would say that showing the white faces against yellow teeth was a deliberate decision on the part of the director and designers.
I’d also like to point out that it was also accurate for the French aristocracy to not all look like movie stars. Being born into a privileged family isn’t a ticket for good looks.
And how many movies are there about the eleventh Louis? 
The guy was ugly as an old boot.
The wigs are perfectly accurate. Wigs as a fashion item were a feature of court dress throughout the 18th-century. Many men of the period had shaved heads, for comfort under the wigs. I think it was fairly uncommon to use a man’s own hair for those elaborate styles with side curls, but I’m not sure.
The powder was another fashion item, and it wasn’t bug killer. Contrary to popular belief, 18th-century wigs weren’t infested with bugs and mice, unless you let them sit for weeks in the corner of a room. It could have been fine wheat flour or some other white powder. Wigs (and hair) commonly had a layer of pomade applied to them first, to make the powder stick, which was usually some sort of fat or tallow.
Wigs fell out of favor with the French revolution, though fashion was trending toward a more natural appearance at the time, anyway. One of the objections that the revolutionists had in France was that while there was essentially a famine on for the rest of the country, the aristocracy continued to party and use lots of wheat flour on their wigs and hair. Whether that actually impacted the wheat available or was just a rhetorical point, I don’t know.
Side note: The wigs that lawyers and judges wear in English courts are a fossilized relic of the 18th century, when a man of substance was required to wear a wig to be fully dressed.
And regarding the white makup, from here:
True. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a painting of a really attractive king or queen, prince or princess – by today’s standards anyway. As someone who got most of her European history from novels (heavy on romance), I was surprised.
Weren’t the Bourbons the ones with distinctive noses?
The impression I have is that even if someone was naturally attractive, they’d use the paint and powder and wigs anyway, as a sign of status. Or would natural beauty be appreciated in those times?
spoke, I didn’t know the English did it too.
Who copied who? Did everyone follow the French? Did the Russian court do this too? And the Spanish?
I don’t know. Ol’ Boot Face had one, though.
-
You can’t change bone structure with lead white. If someone had a good framework, it would be there regardless of whether or not they were covered in white paint.
-
The makeup wasn’t an everyday thing, like wearing makeup is today. It was only used for gatherings of people of rank. So if you were just kicking it at home in the country or at an intimate dinner with family and friends, then you wouldn’t be plastered with it.
-
Standards of beauty and ways of achieving that beauty have changed. To people in the 18th century, the white makeup didn’t look foreign and unnatural – it was just part of the fashion of the day. Like thick-framed glasses or hip-hugger jeans are today. They thought they looked good.
What I’m trying to say is that 18th-century concept of beauty differs significantly from ours. What we would call a natural beauty isn’t necessarily what they would call a natural beauty and vice versa. Maybe they’d call her pretty if she showed up in court without makeup, but they’d also think she was really weird and kind of scandalous for not doing so. Like people today for the most part use deodorant, and think it’s pretty strange if someone doesn’t.
Do you understand what I’m trying to say? It’s not as simple as artifice and natural beauty, because what was considered beauty was reflected in how they made themselves up.
The French led fashion, for the most part, though there were more regional fashion trends elsewhere. The other royal courts of Europe would have had their own interpretations on the French style, but it would have been strongly influenced by France.
It’s all starting to make sense – thanks. 
I went looking for some paintings of 18th century women. I think this lady would be considered attractive today. There are lots more here.
Something I noticed on that page and in paintings from other centuries as well is that eyelashes are barely noticeable. I wouldn’t know if that’s because long, dark, curly eyelashes are a 20th century thing or what.
Interesting, the changes in standards.